Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!hankd From: hankd@pur-ee.UUCP (Hank Dietz) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Copylefting Summary: PD does not imply uncopyrighted Message-ID: <12361@pur-ee.UUCP> Date: 25 Jul 89 23:41:59 GMT References: <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <23837@santra.UUCP> <5207@ficc.uu.net> <12344@pur-ee.UUCP> <26633@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: hankd@pur-ee.UUCP (Hank Dietz) Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 19 In article <26633@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: >In article <12344@pur-ee.UUCP> hankd@pur-ee.UUCP (Hank Dietz) writes: .... I'd just like to clarify that public domain (PD) software DOES carry a copyright. However, the PD copyright notice explicitly grants all rights to the public at large -- except the right to be identified as the creator of the original software.... This is exactly how research results published in journals are treated: the text is copyrighted, the authors must be given due credit for their work, but everyone is free to build upon that work. This certainly isn't all a copyleft implies. Copyleft implies a profound form of transitive ownership rights, and it is this aspect I find disturbing. Someone who modifies your PD code shouldn't have any obligation to you other than to acknowledge, by appropriate citation, your prior work. Of course, this is just my opinion. -hankd